<p>
</p>
<p>And yet, somehow the Catholic Church did not receive such deeply thought out, pensive reflection on this particular venue. </p>
<p>Why is that?</p>
<p>One thing that the Freeh report did state was that the way Paterno was ousted was wrong. It was a confused board who didn’t know what to do, that decided to defuse the situation quickly and just pointed that way. Yes, he should have been fired, but not then and not that way. The board acted as cowards. And that was pretty apparent when it happened that they were just trying protect themselves when they did this. The report is clear on that without supporting Paterno in the lease.</p>
<p>
I’m really hoping you don’t mean he should have been given more consideration. Sandusky was charged years before the actual charges were filed. The BOT knew this, they knew what was coming, they knew that Paterno covered it up. They didn’t have to wait.</p>
<p>dietz – you think that Stanford’s defining characteristic is the sports program?</p>
<p>I don’t know how to quote…so as far as typing Mr. Paterno, well how do you want me to refer to him? I don’t know enough about Penn State or the football program there to have another name available.</p>
<p>As far as supporting Penn State, to the best of my recollection I’ve never seen a Penn State game, I live on the opposite side of the country, so I tend to watch Pac-12 games. I am not a Penn State alumni. Really, I just think that should be some compassion for those at Penn State who have to face new realities about the former football coach. I don’t think his actions can be defended. But it seems like many people in that area had a different view for many decades. It seems like a grief process. It takes time to adjust to the new reality.</p>
<p>
. No, I sure did not mean to imply that in the least. But, more folks know the ‘Cardinals’ than could name a HYPM team.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>cpt, as to your first point: It’s not that Sandusky was so pivotal. It’s that he could have brought bad publicity to the program. They didn’t value him; they were afraid of him.</p>
<p>As to your second: These men knew that Sandusky’s activities were sexual in nature. And they certainly knew that it was supposed to be reported to authorities and were apparently about to do that, until JoePa vetoed the plan.</p>
<p>dietz, I can’t disagree with that!</p>
<p>If you read the report, you can see why what was done at the time was not done properly, was a knee jerk reaction. This is not my opinion, but that of those who did the investigation and they were in no way easy on Paterno. The board does not come out looking good at all in this report. They should all be replaced. If Paterno were alive, this report might well have charges brought against him. I am just waiting for Spanier and some others named to be so charged. </p>
<p>There is the right way to handle things. In all of this, we do still have to remember that Curley and Schultz have yet to have their day in court. Even as I would rally to arrest Spanier and file charges against him along with a bunch of others who clearly disregarded the evidence that young kids were being abused, possibly sodomized, that Sandusky had a problem there, I also say that things have to proceed properly with those so accused. </p>
<p>With Sandusky convicted, and this report now made public, Penn State now has to make some decisions on how to proceed. They need some internal cleansing and have to make a whole lot of recompense. What are the victims now doing? What do they want? Are they getting counseling? I know the university has made overtures in that direction. What is appropriate and adequate recompense? Who else is going to be hit up? Deep pockets and weak walls, usually. </p>
<p>I can tell you that as a mom pushing age 60 with 5 teen and young adult sons, it did not occur to me, while the older ones were small children, that molestation was an issue that had to be watched for. For young girls, yes, but not for boys. A lot of moms where on their toes with theri daughters in terms of chaperoning and making sure they were not in situations alone with male coaches and instructures, but we did not think that way about our boys. I’ve yet to hear of any of their peers being abused. With the younger ones in Catholic school settings, the issue were brought up in parent discussion and school policies that kids were not put in situations where this could easily happen. At their school, all the teachers, staff and even parent volunteers had to not only be screened, but get trained and take workshops on avoiding potentially compromising situations and being alert about the kids finding themselves in such situations. In other words becoming patrols and checks within the system so that Sanduskys could be spotted. It does make things more difficult for all involved to follow these guidelines. Can’t have a teacher alone with a kid, for nearly any reason. Many a time I would stay at a school till the last kid was picked up, due to those procedures. And sometimes it was tiresome and very inconvenient to follow those rules, and highly unnecessary most all of the time. But you never know when it was necessary. Still, they would not protect kids from a determined predator. The other important part of all of this was educating the kids on what was right and wrong in these situations too, so that they knew that anyone acting inappropriately around them was doing something bad. I wonder if those Second MIle kids were so advised. That Sandusky was taking these kids places by himself is a red flag in itself. Under the guidelines I have had to follow, that was simply not permitted when I was volunteering or doing anything on behalf of a school program. </p>
<p>But under such rules, one would not have programs like Big Brothers and Sisters. that involve placing children in the trust of others.</p>
<p>Who are the cardinals, are you talking about the Church?</p>
<p>cpt: The Cardinals are the Stanford football team…see…great school …with football in perspective.</p>
<p>“I have to believe that these men did not really believe these kids were being raped.”</p>
<p>I think you are completely wrong. Anyone that I know that heard about the shower scene, the first thought on their minds is sodomizing. It is very absurd to think otherwise especially after what they have gone through with the 1998 incident. They would like you to think that the thought never crossed their mind but I don’t buy it.</p>
<p>"Money still flowing the wrong way, for me to get why Paterno just didn’t tell Sandusky to “get out of Dodge”</p>
<p>I just don’t see the difficulty. Sandusky could bring Paterno down with him. And Sandusky got everything he wanted - money, status, opportunity, facilities, access to young boys, and reputation. All thanks to JoePa. Good deal!</p>
<p>Look - we now know that Paterno knew in 1998 (I think he knew years earlier.) Shortly thereafter, he arranged for the Professor Emeritus status, and the $168,000 payout. The rest just went on from there. And, no, I don’t buy the idiot-child scenario.</p>
<p>^And they couldn’t let Sandusky leave and get a job somewhere else. He could eventually get caught and the trail would lead back to Penn State. Give him a sweetheart retirement deal and the charity to run locally. Sandusky seemed to have tried to get jobs elsewhere but he was somehow shunned. Not that far-fetched but certainly very wicked if they actually planned it all out like that consciously or subconsciously.</p>
<p>Why would Sandusky want to go elsewhere (after 1999) when he now had everything he could ever want (and, when he didn’t, he could always get more from JoePa?)</p>
<p>Follow the money trail to the Governor.</p>
<p>Idiot, yes. Child, no. </p>
<p>As a mother, I just cannot see a number of adults, many of them parents, not concerned in the least about children that they knew were being sodomized.</p>
<p>Oh, I can easily see JoePa being “concerned”. But football and being JoePa was Paterno’s life. Anyhow - that’s already settled by the Freeh Report - JoePa knew in 1998. We don’t have to debate that one anymore. The only question on that score is how long before 1998 he knew.</p>
<p>“As a mother, I just cannot see a number of adults, many of them parents, not concerned in the least about children that they knew were being sodomized.”</p>
<p>How about priests? You are being very naive.</p>
<p>I know I’m not the brightest person, but I don’t get what the downside would have been to fire and report Sandusky all those years ago. Any institution could have a problem employee and if it’s dealt with appropriately it doesn’t reflect badly on the institution. Certainly nothing like this horror we’re seeing now.</p>
<p>^How about this one super football recruit is deciding between us and school XYZ, and we can’t have anything that would tip over the scale to the other side. Sandusky was connected to the football program, using the school football facility and name to help him carry out his abuse. That is a huge blow to the program and the school.</p>